ABSTRACT
Introducción: Identificar factores de riesgo para pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora es fundamental para prevenir el Pie Diabético. Objetivos: Analizar los factores de riesgo asociados a la pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora en pacientes con diabetes mellitus y sus complicaciones. Materiales y métodos: diseño observacional, de casos y controles. Se incluyó pacientes de ambos sexos, con diabetes mellitus; ≥ 18 años, a quienes se realizó el Test de monofilamento en la Unidad Multidisciplinaria Hospital de Clínicas, de enero 2014 a julio 2019. Factores de riesgo considerados: edad, años de diabetes mellitus, Hba1c, HTA, dislipidemia; se tuvo en cuenta las complicaciones: retinopatía, enfermedad arterial periférica = ITB <0,9 derecho e izquierdo, enfermedad renal= ClCr <60 ml/min/m2 (MDRD), amputaciones (mayores y menores). Resultados: De 100 pacientes; 33% con pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora; edad 59±9,7 años; 55% masculino. Factores de riesgo: edad: 57,7±1,0 años sin pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora y 61,2±9 años con pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora, p=0.08; años de diabetes mellitus 9,4±8,4 vs 11,5± 8,7 p=0,20; HbA1C 8,8± 2,7% vs 9,1±2% p=0,50; HTA 63,5% vs 75,6% p=0,20; dislipidemias 75,9% vs 57,69%, p=0,09; complicaciones con pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora: retinopatía 88% vs 57,5% OR=1,67, p=0,02. ClCr 84±40,3 ml/min vs 90,9±30,4, p=0,40. Enfermedad arterial periférica derecha 27,78% vs 11,1% OR=0,1, p=0,10; enfermedad arterial periférica izquierda 20% vs 7 15,5% OR=1 p=0,60; amputación 17,5% vs 7,9% OR=2,01, p=0,06. Conclusión: con pérdida de la sensibilidad protectora: la edad, años de diabetes mellitus fueron mayores. HTA fue más frecuente y Hba1c más elevada; nefropatía, enfermedad arterial periférica y amputación con mayor frecuencia, todas no significativas. La retinopatía fue más frecuente en forma significativa.
Introduction: Identifying risk factors for loss of protective sensitivity is essential to prevent Diabetic Foot. Objectives: To analyze the risk factors associated with the loss of protective sensitivity in patients with diabetes mellitus and its complications. Materials and methods: observational, case-control design. Patients of both sexes were included, with diabetes mellitus; ≥ 18 years, who underwent the Monofilament Test in the Multidisciplinary Unit Hospital de Clínicas, from January 2014 to July 2019. Risk factors considered: age, years of diabetes mellitus, Hba1c, HT, dyslipidemia; Complications were taken into account: retinopathy, peripheral arterial disease = ABI <0.9 right and left, kidney disease = CrCl <60 ml / min / m2 (MDRD), amputations (major and minor). Results: Of 100 patients; 33% with loss of protective sensitivity; age 59 ± 9.7 years; 55% male. Risk factors: age: 57.7 ± 1.0 years without loss of protective sensitivity and 61.2 ± 9 years with loss of protective sensitivity, p = 0.08; years of diabetes mellitus 9.4 ± 8.4 vs 11.5 ± 8.7 p = 0.20; HbA1C 8.8 ± 2.7% vs 9.1 ± 2% p = 0.50; HTN 63.5% vs 75.6% p = 0.20; dyslipidemias 75.9% vs 57.69%, p = 0.09; complications with loss of protective sensitivity: retinopathy 88% vs 57.5% OR = 1.67, p = 0.02. CrCl 84 ± 40.3 ml / min vs 90.9 ± 30.4, p = 0.40. Right peripheral arterial disease 27.78% vs 11.1% OR = 0.1, p = 0.10; left peripheral arterial disease 20% vs 7 15.5% OR = 1 p = 0.60; 17.5% amputation vs 7.9% OR = 2.01, p = 0.06. Conclusion: with loss of protective sensitivity: age, years of diabetes mellitus were older. HBP was more frequent and Hba1c higher; nephropathy, peripheral arterial disease and amputation with greater frequency, all not significant. Retinopathy was significantly more frequent.
Subject(s)
Diabetic Foot , Diabetes Mellitus , Dyslipidemias , Peripheral Arterial Disease , Amputation, Surgical , Risk Factors , Kidney DiseasesABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the correlation between Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test and light touch exam of international standard for spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods 84 inpatients with SCI were assessed with Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test and light touch exam of international standard to determine the SCI level. The results were recorded as right-side and left-side of the body respective-ly. Results The normal tactual level of monofilament test and the normal light touch level of International Standard of Spinal Cord Injury (ISSCI) was consistent in 36%result to the unilateral level of SCI. For the 45 cases with ASIA A injury, 71%of the key points below the SCI level lost the tactual sensation in monofilament test, and 84%lost in light touch exam of ISSCI. Conclusion The result of monofilament test is poorly consistent with light touch exam of SCI, which may result from tactile sensitization after SCI. It is recommended to combine these exam in practices.
ABSTRACT
@#Objective To investigate the correlation between Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test and light touch exam of international standard for spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods 84 inpatients with SCI were assessed with Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test and light touch exam of international standard to determine the SCI level. The results were recorded as right-side and left-side of the body respectively. Results The normal tactual level of monofilament test and the normal light touch level of International Standard of Spinal Cord Injury (ISSCI) was consistent in 36% result to the unilateral level of SCI. For the 45 cases with ASIA A injury, 71% of the key points below the SCI level lost the tactual sensation in monofilament test, and 84% lost in light touch exam of ISSCI. Conclusion The result of monofilament test is poorly consistent with light touch exam of SCI, which may result from tactile sensitization after SCI. It is recommended to combine these exam in practices.